Familypedia:Things that Need To Be Done for the Wiki
This WAS a listing of specific tasks that needed to be accomplished to improve the functionality of the Wiki. Now this sort of thing (just like the Old Watercooler) is much better dealt with in the FORUMS, where each item can have a separate page that can be easily linked to (because it needs no "#" (marker)) and relevantly categorised and it gets listed automatically when anyone looks at the forum group (currently either help desk or watercooler) that it is in. Please: #Don't start any new subjects here; #Do copy to a new Forum page anything here that seems to need more attention, so that it can get linked, categorised, and prominently listed (as mentioned above). I've noted the odd unrecorded progress points below, in case that's enough to show people not to bother copying that item to the forum. Robin Patterson 13:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) ---- ---- ---- ---- Categories - searching, grouping, etc 1. The main "Category" page at http://genealogy.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:Categories&limit=500&offset=0 contains several thousand entries, all listed one after the other in alphanumeric order. Scrolling through them to find a specific category is not time effective. What's needed is a grouping method that would allow an end user to call up all categories beginning with, for example, the letter 'A'. An appropriate model would that be used at the Category:template page http://genealogy.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Templates. While I can't point to another example at the moment, I believe this is also a problem with certain other "special" pages. In any case, implementing a solution on these pages would require Admin authority. Bill 16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC) :I think User:MrDolomite offered an almost ideal solution to that grouping problem. If no progress in a week, drop me a reminder. Robin Patterson 03:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC) :First step is at . Robin Patterson 08:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC) . Robin Patterson 22:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC) ::I have had a quick look at this listing and yes there are several thousand entries. I personaly think that if there are too many entries in a particular category then a further sub category should be formed. For example, I notice that within this list there mostly seems to be years and surnames. So perhaps we should form a surnames category (I think there already is one) and a category for years, which coud then be subcategorised into centuries and then say blocks of 10 years e.g. 20th Century -> 1981-1990 -> 1985.--Penelope Blake 09:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC) :::Penelope, we have an extensive system of years (grouped in centuries) and surname categories. Please check Forum:Standardising "year" articles for current progress with year pages and categories, and maybe see (or take a closer look at) Genealogy:Surname category template and . Robin Patterson 13:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Beyond the "Create a page" button 2. Addition of the Create a Page link in the sidebar is a significant advance toward making page creation easier, especially for newbies. A link needs to be added to the page called up from the "create a page" sidebar link, that would direct the user to a page where they could select from various templates to create a page matching their needs. :Well, at present there are not many such templates; the page you are talking about contains one and has a link encouraging readers to look at another. I agree it needs some rearranging. Robin Patterson 03:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC) ::I'm working on developing an alternate set of templates. In the Wigton Walker Project I've established two---a "standard" template which includes minimal window dressing, and a minimal amount of information, and a "research" template, that gets more complex. That sort of brackets the range of needs. I've something like this in mind for the "create page" article. It would probably have a) The existing standard template, b) a highly simplified template (based on Wigotn Walker Standard), and something more complex similar to the Research template. Other templates types (e.g, references, records, maps, etc.) could be created as needed---but I haven't figured out yet what's a common enough need to justify a specific template. :::I've added a "Template Selection" item to the "Create a Page" article. Personally, I think the explanation at the top of the article need to go lower down, so that the template selection (which may be why people would come to something called "Create a Page" should be at the top, but I also agree that making it too easy might lead to other problems---so they have to read the "rules" first, before they figure out that they can click on item 7 in the table of contents, and go directly to the template selector. Bill 01:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC) This might be a page that would create a person article using the standard template format, or other template formats as seems appropriate. This is something that can be done without Admin authority, and I plan on adding this functionality shortly. However, reservations have been expressed about making page creation "too easy" for newbies, as that might lead to problems in terms of naming conventions, duplication of articles, etc. There's good with the bad in everything, and I believe that increased errors are a small price to pay for an increased user base, but this is something that can and should be explored. Also, the creation of a system such as suggested in the following item, would greatly reduce and perhaps minimize error creation caused by increased ease of use. Bill 16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC) :We have had (thanks to Bill and others) about six for some time, all using simple input boxes - see Genealogy:Surname category template. Most newbies seem to find one very quickly. There's more than one emphasised caution that people should do a search to see whether their person is already on a page. Robin Patterson 13:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Single record data entry 3. Most genealogy programs, as well as online systems such as Ancestry, utilize a single record data entry system. That is, once data has been entered for a person (DOB, DOD, Spouse, children), that data is carried through to other articles, where ever needed. This eliminates the need for duplicate data entry, and minimizes errors. These are capabilities that are generally expected in a genealogy program or a web based system. Mechanisms are needed to implement such capabilities on this site. That might be accomplished in several ways, but the most likely is development of the appropriate extensions in the underlying programming. In my opinion the absence of this capability is the most significant factor explaining why most users quit the site after a single session. Bill 18:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC) :"Copy and paste" (using separate windows) solves some of that. More boldness in creating a separate page for each of those people would also reduce need. For example, you don't need to list the birth and death dates in a list of children if they have their own pages and are listed in the (YoB-YoD) form. Robin Patterson 03:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC) ::Yes, thre are workarounds...but the common denominator that's come back to me from people testing out the system is that there's a need for a single-entry system. It really is industry standard. For the site to meet its potential, this is an essential addition. Will take some time, and some serious programming. PHP, an object oriented programming language, is what's used to write extesions to the Media Wiki. I'm probably not willing to add PHP to my list of programming languages, so its something that will need someone else to do the heavy lifting and toting.Bill 12:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC) ::Another way that you could reduce some of the effort and duplication (and associated errors) is by using a "husband-wife" pair page. Then the main problem of duplication would be elminated. Its not exactly "industry standard" but many genealogy programs solve the same problem in this way. However, that's not the way the site was set up, and its probably too late to change.Bill 12:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC) :::I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me that someone needs to write a GEDCOM2WIKI program that converts a GEDCOM into series of wiki articles, and then GeneWikia needs a tool to accept those pages. My $.02. Jillaine 17:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC) ::::Oh dear heaven, please bear with me. I see elsewhere that this is a topic that's been discussed for awhile. I'll shut up now and go back to silent reading. Jillaine 18:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC) :::::Yes, a search for "gedcom" currently takes you to the Gedcom page; halfway down - Gedcom#See_also - is the link to the conversion method. Robin Patterson 13:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Archiving "news" and discussions 4. A system needs to be developed for archiving things like the watercooler, so that they do not show long-out-of-date information. For exmple, telling a user that "In March the Genealogy Wiki was the fifth most active Wiki" is not very meaningful if the observation was made in April of 2005, and its now September 2006. It also creates the wrong impression. Bill 19:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC) :Good points. Archived a bit today and will do more soon. Robin Patterson 03:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC) ::Robin, This does need additional archiving. Most of the discussions are not current, and its a bit difficult to find new comments because there's a lot of stuff to sort through. Looking at the history of the page, and comparing current and recent versions helps, but is a tad cumbersome. Placeing more of the older stuff in the archive would definitely help. Can a "snap shot" of the entire page be taken, say once a month, and placed in the archive for reference, and then material culled out of the current page? I haven't gotten into the archiveing end of this, and am not sure quite how to do it. Probably best to leave it to your greater experience.Bill 13:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC) :::Superseded by the Forums, with a link back to the Old Watercooler. Robin Patterson 13:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Spelling 5. It would also be nice to have a spell checker (I can wish, can't I), as sum of us can't spell so gud on our own.Bill 22:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC) :Why shud I beleeve that? There is half a solution in the ability to compose pages offline. I forget where I read about it. Robin Patterson 03:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC) ::Quite true. And at least one Walker researcher is indeed preparing his materials off line for exactly that reason. Myself, I'm more of a "draw and shoot" type, and an in-line spell checker would be nice...though I can't imagine it being implemented here if its not already been done on the Wikipedia. One day, maybe. :::In page text anyone can correct their earlier errors or someone else's. In page names it's more of a nuisance but nothing that a simple "Move" or redirect can't solve. One of the least of our problems here! Robin Patterson 06:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC) ::::The Opera web browser has a spelling checker built in: Edit menu - Check spelling. TimeLine Maker There's a tool that's been designed for the Wikipedia that automates the creation of timelines. Very useful for history, but also very useful for genealogy. Would be nice to have it imported here, but a rather low priority. Something I'll work on in the future.